How the Term “Thirst” Reveals the Ruthlessness of Society Toward Male Sexual Needs

Recently the term “thirsty men” has been picked up, along with “incel” as labels to indicate the very lowest of the low among humans. Males desperate for sex are are ranked right there with serial killers and child rapists as the most disgusting, pathetic people in the universe.

Why is a desperate male need for sexual satisfaction generally characterized as a weakness to be mocked and seen as pathetic and shameful? In fact, the “thirsty man” is despised by both feminists

Ladies. Social media has unleashed a new strain of loser. The “thirsty” man. Here’s how to spot him. (The Good Man Project)

… and anti-feminists:

We are currently in the middle of an epidemic of incredibly desperate men who will do anything to put their dicks into the most deplorable of vaginas. (Roosh V).

Why is it that male sexual needs — arguably the only thing that really keeps the human race from going extinct (if you think that’s a bad thing) — are seen by both sides as so absolutely despicable and pathetic?

A weak woman or child who desperately needs food, or water (someone ACTUALLY “thirsty”) would never be mocked as pathetic and dangerous, even though they, too, are desperate. “Oh look, that’s a hungry person. Watch out, they might steal our food!”

Yet men’s pressing and frustrating sexual needs are seen as ABSOLUTELY not sympathetic in any way. A man who wants sex and can’t get it without appearing desperate is pretty much at the bottom of the totem pole socially, and is generally mocked, derided and looked down on.

My take on the reasons for this is extremely depressing for men. It has to be this way; society functions on our desperation. Socially, the concept of “empathy” is misleading. We don’t really empathize with humans for the needs they actually feel. If we did, a hungry child would be no more or less sympathetic than a desperately horny man. Both are suffering from deep, biological needs that are unmet.

Rather, our social sympathies evolve according to what is good for society as a whole, regardless of how miserable it makes the individuals. Obviously, a child dying of hunger is a future taxpayer and potential worker. So societies that sympathize with those needs just grow faster than societies that don’t.

And societies that grow beat societies that don’t. There are probably societies out there that don’t sympathize with hungry children. But they are tiny, and won’t be growing.

Conversely, unfortunately, societies that have lots of sexually frustrated males will generally be more productive and grow faster than societies that don’t. Desperate, “thirsty” men do dangerous jobs; they fight the wars so the rest of us are safe; they do the hard-labor, dirty, isolated work others won’t like trucking, oil rig work, and fishing; they spend all their earnings pursuing women, and then when they get the women, they hand over all their money to those women, who spend it. Society flourishes.

So it’s evolution. Why else would a hungry child truly seem so much more sympathetic than a horny, but awkward, male? At first glance you might say “well, a horny man is a huge burden — it isn’t our problem that he’s horny. Why should we be bothered?

But a hungry child is ALSO a huge burden, arguably far more so. After all, if you help a hungry child, that child will end up being a huge burden, right? You’re going to have to feed that kid for YEARS, only to have him or her probably never repay you.

You might also say “the child didn’t choose to be hungry!” Well, the man didn’t choose to be sexually frustrated, either. Nobody chooses their misery.

Ultimately, as I see it, the reason that male sexual frustration gets zero empathy is because society functions better and produces more wealth for everyone, if a lot of men are desperate and miserable once they reach the age of sexual maturity. Society NEEDS males to be desperately trying to please women. Those males will then work hard, pay lots of taxes on the money they earn, give the women lots of money to impress them, and generally create economic and social energy.

Now, you might think in reading this “this is just a frustrated, thirsty male incel.”

But I’m hardly thirsty, and definitely not celibate. In the past few years, post-divorce, I have developed a pretty compulsive sex addiction, as a result of finally cracking the key to getting as much sex as I want. Of course this isn’t ROMANTIC sex — the last thing I want at this stage of my life is the complication of trying to have romances with multiple women.

I get a lot of sex via “mutual arrangements” with women, extremely beneficial ones for both of us. From escorts to “sugar babies” to “friends with benifits.” I also am in a long-term, open relationship with a very understanding woman. So I get LOTS of sex.

However, I am frustrated. I’m frustrated at how difficult it was to get to this place. I’m frustrated that for over a decade in my 20s I never saw anyone talking about the fact that sex was something men needed more than women, or that men were willing financially support women to get sex, while women were willing to give sex in exchange for financial support.

I’m also frustrated at how men are demonized and attacked constantly for their needs and desires, while society is so obviously structured to KEEP men desperate so they’ll work harder.

The other related issue behind this contempt for sexually frustrated men, I believe, is that desperate men make stupid decisions. And because men making stupid decisions (such as getting married, and getting women pregnant) is an economic engine for society, we don’t want to jeopardize that by telling the men “OK, you clearly seem to need more sex that you are able to find. So we’ll just legalize prostitution and let you get all the sex you want at reasonable prices.”

I think if more men figured out what I’ve figured out, our society would in fact be hurt because men would really stop contributing as husbands/devoted boyfriends spending huge amounts of money and effort on women.

Because there’s definitely zero interest in me in the present time for anthing beyond what I have. It’s wonderful to get my sexual needs fully met pretty much whenever I want. I know I have a better sex life than any married man.

A few weeks ago, I enjoyed back-to-back sex sessions from two different women in the same day. It was amazing … for two hours I received mind-blowing oral sex and multiple orgasms. I didn’t have to do anything but lift my wallet.

I didn’t plan it that way. Basically, they both called me up and asked to “hang out” because they needed a little “financial help.” Whenever I hang out with my “companions” I always give them a fixed amount of financial help, regardless of whether we have sex or not (to avoid any potential prostitution issues). But, coincidentally, I get a TON of sex with these women.

As I was pleasured by these women, I thought “some guys marry their high school sweetheart. They think they’re lucky — but when they’re in their forties they never experience anything NEARLY this pleasurable.”

And of course lots of guys who marry their high school sweethearts end up divorced and broken, and then getting married again and divorced again. Desperate men do desperate things. And society likes it that way.